Iraqi PM says US should leave as soon as possible - Page 2

section eight · 07-19-08, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

You are joking about the bolded statement, right? I mean, just this week the administration basically ignored the Iraqi president and created a whole new term to justify that disregard. We are still behaving like EIO's from anything I can see.

Has the Iraqi government passed and singed into law a bill calling for a timetable? The have a Constitutional system of governance with separate branches of government, Maliki is not the dictator of Iraq, you know that whole Democracy thing?

section eight · 07-19-08, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWG

Isn't it their country and haven't we been told all along we would leave when they want us to?

Well they're telling us.

Have they passed a bill and singed it into law requesting the U.S. to leave? Was Maliki appointed dictator while I was in the shower or something?

DivineComedy · 07-19-08, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

So have you had your head in the sand the past few days?

U.S., Iraq to set time horizon on troop cuts | Reuters

President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed to set a "time horizon" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, despite Bush's long opposition to deadlines for troop withdrawals.

In the closest the Bush administration has come to acknowledging the need for a timeframe for U.S. troop cuts, the White House said on Friday that U.S. and Iraqi negotiators would seek "aspirational goals" for withdrawals.<snip>

"Agreed" does not sound like "ignored" or "disregard" to me, but I do not have a "liberal" dictionary.

Summerwind · 07-19-08, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

"Agreed" does not sound like "ignored" or "disregard" to me, but I do not have a "liberal" dictionary.

My point was that a whole new term had to be devised in order for an agreement to be had. However based on the OP, it seems that Maliki would nonetheless prefer Obama's intended timetable over Bush's "time horizon," however if you need to change the topic to appear to be right, well, that says a lot.

DivineComedy · 07-19-08, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

My point was that a whole new term had to be devised in order for an agreement to be had. However based on the OP, it seems that Maliki would nonetheless prefer Obama's intended timetable over Bush's "time horizon," however if you need to change the topic to appear to be right, well, that says a lot.

A term that means less than Tuesday's timetable, but around next week, is more in line with Obama's recent flip flop on this very issue.

The topic is:
"but what say ye?"

I say it is great, I hope the surge did work and Iraq is now stable enough to keep their democracy, regardless of the political bull of changing terms to reflect the fluid situation that may develop. I wanted our troops out before I ever came on this board, and somewhere in an archive at the White House there may be proof. Attempts to support the inhuman creatures who would never have given Iraq a chance to this kind of democratic agreement will not distract me from the real topic.

Unlike the Democratic Party monsters, I have always supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, as far back as 1992 when I protested the lukewarm "liberal" arts of war when Gorby said, "that is far enough," when I did not believe it was far enough.

Summerwind · 07-19-08, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

A term that means less than Tuesday's timetable, but around next week, is more in line with Obama's recent flip flop on this very issue.

The topic is:
"but what say ye?"

I say it is great, I hope the surge did work and Iraq is now stable enough to keep their democracy, regardless of the political bull of changing terms to reflect the fluid situation that may develop. I wanted our troops out before I ever came on this board, and somewhere in an archive at the White House there may be proof. Attempts to support the inhuman creatures who would never have given Iraq a chance to this kind of democratic agreement will not distract me from the real topic.

Unlike the Democratic Party monsters, I have always supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, as far back as 1992 when I protested the lukewarm "liberal" arts of war when Gorby said, "that is far enough," when I did not believe it was far enough.

I can agree with the idea that Bush1 should've finished what he started, perhaps we wouldn't have been in this problem now if he had.

DivineComedy · 07-19-08, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

I can agree with the idea that Bush1 should've finished what he started, perhaps we wouldn't have been in this problem now if he had.

Bush Sr. did not start it, Saddam did, but Bush did start our obligations under H32 of United Nations (of tyrants too) resolution 687, which prompts me always to say cold or hot but never the lukewarm "liberal" arts of war.

And Bush could not finish what Saddam started for the exact same reason the Arab League stopped United Nations (of tyrants too) action until there were no more villages to burn in Darfur. Now the lame excuse of the ICC, the court without any real bailiff, is mad at the Sudan's president; The world does not know how to read Article One of the UN Charter with regard to removing threats to the peace, and the only answer is for treasonous democrats to support treason against the Declaration of Independence's "Consent of the Governed" where we would only have some protection from politically motivated prosecutions. I suppose if ICC did not like the benefits of Oil for Food, and the appearance of justice meant anything the ICC would have indicted Saddam, and used spit balls there too.

cherokee · 07-19-08, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

So have you had your head in the sand the past few days?

U.S., Iraq to set time horizon on troop cuts | Reuters

President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed to set a "time horizon" for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq, despite Bush's long opposition to deadlines for troop withdrawals.

In the closest the Bush administration has come to acknowledging the need for a timeframe for U.S. troop cuts, the White House said on Friday that U.S. and Iraqi negotiators would seek "aspirational goals" for withdrawals.<snip>

Sand? No its been inside an MRI. Anymore retarded questions?

I guess you didn't see the part that said....

Quote:

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been working in fits and starts on a formal Status of Forces Agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when an U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Maliki, expressing his government's growing confidence as violence has decreased, last week raised the prospect of setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. But U.S. officials have been more cautious.

The White House said Bush and Maliki aimed to complete a deal by the end of the month.

But why would you...........

Summerwind · 07-19-08, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

Sand? No its been inside an MRI. Anymore retarded questions?

I guess you didn't see the part that said....

But why would you...........

How does that change the fact that a sovereign Iraq shouldn't have to negotiate the withdrawal of our occupation? The whole idea that a deal has to be reached is completely the point. I suppose it would be a bit different if it were Iraq wanting us to stay, and we had to work out a reasonable situation; but to leave. . . it's called "okay, bye, you're a sovereign nation, we respect your request." No negotiation should be required at all. Why Maliki didn't just sent a timetable proposal to the Iraqi congress and whomever needs to vote on it, and then demand that we honor it is beyond me; oh, that's right they tried to do that with the immunity for military contractors are were basically ignored. Now I remember.

jallman · 07-19-08, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

My point was that a whole new term had to be devised in order for an agreement to be had. However based on the OP, it seems that Maliki would nonetheless prefer Obama's intended timetable over Bush's "time horizon," however if you need to change the topic to appear to be right, well, that says a lot.

Uh, Bush didn't create a term. Time Horizon is also known as a planning horizon and is used in financing, risk management, forestry projects, etc.

So why is it that rather than educate yourself on the term, you defaulted to the "Bush lied" caterwauling that you people do? How does foot taste?